The first strike seems to have failed to accomplish this, and the Iranians are showing they do not fear retaliation by Israel or the US by striking directly at Tel Aviv. This is a very telling sign. — Tzeentch

Why aren't they attacking U.S. bases in the region? There's no Iron Dome protecting them.

A man disguised as a police officer shot and killed Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman & her husband this morning. Police found his manifesto and "no kings" fliers in his car. This happened after Hortman broke from her party and voted to defund healthcare for adult illegal aliens.

We need to have a conversation about far-left terrorism in this country. — BitconnectCarlos

Looking like he was a right wing Christian nut, but whatever political persuasion he turns out to be, things are getting kind of ugly.

Are you sad that Israel is ethnically cleansing Iran's nuclear capabilities from the planet? :fear: — BitconnectCarlos

Haven't we been here before? I remember another Middle Eastern adventure predicated on stopping Iraq from getting nukes. Turns out, they had no nuke program. And the adventure turned into a horrorshow. Aren't you concerned that can happen here?

The argument is some people's definition of an "oppressive regime" is one that punishes criminals for their criminality.

There is no world government computer to look up someone's name (which can be changed) or their DNA to determine the exact nature of their crimes, if any. — Outlander

But that's also true when the Nazis ask you where the Jew is hiding. You lie to the Gestapo, right? But it's possible the Jew is a serial killer or some other monstrous criminal and he really should be taken in. You still break the law and try and shield him, because the odds are he's not.

You have a point if we're talking about single males, but this doesn't apply to families with children. The children are moral innocents and should not have their lives turned upside down.

It's taking a gamble with human nature. And unless you're a stranger to it, you'd know that is one of the most foolish things one can ever do. Near suicide.

This isn't clear to me.

Obviously, duty to the law (including its spirit) is not absolute, but neither should it become negligible, with the law merely becoming an instrument in power battles. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If an immigrant's only crime is coming here illegally, I don't have a problem with people breaking the law to shield them from deportation, as long as it's done peacefully. Ours is a monstrous system that ruthlessly exploits these people to keep prices down and then turns on a dime and scapegoats them when things get "tough" (coddled Americans think a five cent increase in gas prices is "tough"). Sometimes the law is unjust and shouldn't be followed.

Because having power over others makes it easier to keep that power by controlling the media and establishing long-term relationships with lobbyists. With new people coming in, deals would need to be renegotiated. — Harry Hindu

That's certainly a concern!

I think this incident might be the watershed where we all get used to shit going down and the US is not involved at all, except to protect its interests. The US isn't going to faceplant in the Mid-East trying to fight the tide of chaos. The US isn't going to go another trillion dollars into debt. We can all just breakout the popcorn and watch like everybody else in the world. We're just like everybody else. This is nice. — frank

These kinds of things have a way of spiraling out of control. 20% of the world's oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz. Suppose Iran chooses to shut that down to inflict economic pain on Israel and her backers. Well, now the U.S. president is looking at a catastrophic rise in oil prices, which will lead to more inflation and higher interest rates, which is usually the death knell for an administration. The president is under tremendous pressure to reopen the Strait, so he attacks Iran's navy, but unlike 1988, Iran doesn't back down. So now what?

Why do you think America limited the number of Presidential terms to two? I wonder why they don't do the same for themselves. They can easily write laws to control the other branches of government but can't seem to write one's that control themselves. — Harry Hindu

I think it strikes people as kind of dictatorial and goes against the example Washington set.

But you said it's a problem to have career politicians. What was the problem with FDR? FDR's best moments happened well into his 3rd term. He was a great wartime president. As long as the person has to keep getting elected, why is it bad to keep them in office?

When you make politics a career - that is the problem. — Harry Hindu

Why is that a problem? Lincoln made it a career and I think he was awesome.

I'm not a huge fan of politicians, but what you're saying strikes me as overly cynical and a kind of moral cowardice. In my life, I've seen good and bad politicians and politicians don't seem to me to be any worse than anyone else from some other similar walk of life. Doesn't saying they're all corrupt (or almost all) make it easier then to justify voting for someone you know you shouldn't be voting for?

OK, fair enough. I'm not trying to be a prick. I like arguing and attacking assertions I think are false. This is a philosophy forum. You're going to get a lot of that here.

A politician that furthered my goals perfectly would not do those things. — MrLiminal

Really? I'm thinking of the case of Bill Clinton, who furthered a lot of my goals, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for him because of his behavior. That can't happen with your goals and some hypothetical sleazy leader? Can you give examples of some of your goals?

I think most if not all politicians are morally reprehensible people — MrLiminal

I want to unpack this, because it seems demonstrably false. What was morally reprehensible about Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Obama, for example?

I vote for which monster I think will further my goals. — MrLiminal

Really? There's no disqualifying behavior a politician can partake in that would make you not vote for him? To take an obvious extreme case, what about a politician that furthers your goals perfectly, but is revealed to be a Grand Duke in the KKK? He's also been impeached for bribery. As a citizen, would you vote for this person, assuming the impeachment fails and he runs again. As a senator, would you vote to convict in an impeachment trial if your vote meant conviction? Assume you are convinced on the bribery charges.

Trump's comments on the Central Park Five case don't strike you as racist? Just a tiny bit? Has Trump ever gone after white kids like that?

I agree. I don't think Trump wants anything to do with this. War with Iran means higher gas prices, a lower stock market, higher inflation and higher interest rates.

I think that's obvious, but I don't think it's obvious to Amadeus.

Why do you think Trump escalated the situation by deploying marines? We both agree the NG was enough, right?

Do you think the rioting was so bad the Marines had to be sent in?

What is Iran going to do about it? Their last attack on Israel couldn't get past their missile defenses. Hezbollah has been severely weakened. Iran will be under intense pressure to retaliate in a way that hurts Israel. How do they do that?

Chatgpt:
What’s Likely?
Immediate: Expect a mix—proxy rocket/drone strikes into Israel’s north mixed with ballistic missile launches aimed at military targets. Some will break through.

Cyber attacks targeting critical infrastructure.

Broader escalation: Possibly Gulf shipping attacks.

Western escalation? Minor risk, unless Iran directly hits U.S. assets.

Don’t expect nuclear/civilian strikes—that would trigger full-blown war. They’ll calibrate to hurt Israel enough for domestic pride and deterrence, without crossing Israel’s red lines.

Bottom line: Iran needs something visible to save face. Expect rocket/missile salvos and proxy action soon—and cyber subterfuge. But they’ll avoid all-out war.

So it becomes a somewhat strict place as a result. — Outlander

This is one of the loosest MB's I've been on. People routinely insult each other here, even the mods do it. It's all great fun. You can get away with a lot if you're a quality poster.

Does this indicate though that the administration perhaps isn't quite so gung-ho racist as purported? — AmadeusD

They hired him again! After he said competent white men should be in charge! Aren't you asking me to do an incredible suspension of disbelief when you argue the Trump Admin isn't racist in the face of something like this?

It sounds harsh, but how many people have been killed or seriously hurt here? Isn't that a useful metric for how bad rioting is? Some cops went to the hospital for minor injuries. The reporters getting shot by rubber bullets have been injured about as bad as anyone. Not much of a riot, is it?

He should be fired then, but again, I'm sure I could find deplorable people in every administration. Politicians tend to be bad people, in my experience. — MrLiminal

Can you think of a comparable situation in a democratic administration?

I've lived in L.A. County most of my life. I remember the Rodney King riots, wondering if the rioters would make it to my area. What's going on now is nothing like that. I've seen soccer rioting worse than this.

Obviously his statement is racist and wrong, but I don't find throwing back and forth quotes of politicians saying unhinged things particularly helpful in discussion. — MrLiminal

Oh, that's not the only thing:

"A speechwriter for the Trump administration has been fired following reports that he spoke at a white nationalist conference in 2016.

The White House confirmed to US media on Monday that aide Darren J Beattie, a former visiting instructor at Duke University, had been dismissed.

Mr Beattie had appeared on a panel at the HL Mencken Club conference, which is attended by white supremacists."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45249154

And now he's an undersecretary at the State Department. Of all the qualified people in the country for that position, we hired THIS guy? After firing him years ago for being a racist? Nobody else could do that job? Really, now.

"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black!" - Joe Biden

It seems perhaps so. We could put this down to Biden making a gaffe, but that's cop out material. Given that his administration put forward at least a few overtly racist policies or guidelines (COVID recovery, ARP, COVID mortgage relief guidelines etc..) it isn't that hard to see why people are going to equivocate.

Its hard to think Trump or Biden are actually racist - they both played to their audience. Does this mean everyone is racist? Probably all the loud people, yes. — AmadeusD

It was terrible that Biden said that, but what do his actions show? Does he act racist? Did he hire someone who said "competent white men must be in charge" or did he prioritize putting the first black woman on the Supreme Court and arguing in favor of affirmitive action? What similar things has Trump done to help blacks? I can't think of anything.

There are legitimate differences of opinion about the size and scope of government but those who disagree with us are not traitors or enemies of the state. — prothero

I think we crossed a Rubicon in 2020 when Trump tried to steal the election. In the aftermath, there was a bipartisan vote to impeach and convict him, but it fell short of conviction. Still, very rarely do members of a president's own party vote to convict in an impeachment.

If the deportations are racially motivated, why is that not already happening? — MrLiminal

Why is what not happening? The foreign aid scenario I talked about? Because some things are a little too on the nose even for the Trump Admin to pull off. They have the Midterms to think about. If the racism becomes too overt, they suffer politically.

An undersecretary of the state department tweeted this:
"Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work"

Does that happen in a non racist administration?

It's funny how people thousands of years ago warned us about people like Trump. Truly there's nothing new under the sun. Regarding human behavior, that is.

My understanding is that the South African immigrants were brought here legally, whether or not you agree with the government's reasoning for doing so. — MrLiminal

It would be legal to double foreign aid to all countries with majority white populations and eliminate foreign aid to all countries with majority black populations. But what would you conclude about an administration that did that? You wouldn't spare a second thought about that? That wouldn't seem just a tiny bit racist to you?

If there weren't one, then I'm opposed to it. Like I said, you're asking me for an opinion on the validity of the court analysis, and I just haven't looked into it.

If you want to make the case that an opinion was rendered in error, you could well be right. It sounds like you're just asking me to be outraged though. I don't know. Maybe the US has outrageous laws. That's not a basis for ignoring them. — Hanover

Hanover, are you an American citizen? The Abrego Garcia case has been in the public eye for months here. It's like the Dreyfus Affair. These kinds of individual cases often come to symbolize different political factions. Are you trying to tell me that when people voted for Trump they voted for immigrants to be mistakenly sent to third world prisons?

Really. That's what it means to be a nation of laws. — Hanover

What law was it that said Abrego Garcia should be sent to CECOT?

Do you see anything racist in brown immigrants being sent to CECOT and white South Africans being welcomed as refugees? Anything at all?

It's awful. I'm ashamed to be an American.

These are complicated legal questions, and so I'd really have to read the court opinions on it. — Hanover

Really? You need a court opinion to figure out whether a non El Salvadorian person should be sent to an El Salvadorian prison?

What about returning Albrego Garcia back to the states when the Trump Administration admitted they sent him there by mistake? Do you agree with the way the Trump Admin handled that?

No. That's a legal document. — Hanover

Do you think we should be sending immigrants to an El Salvadorean prison?

And the Constitution is just a piece of paper with some words, right?

It's very complicated. You could be here seeking asylum, or protected by DACA, or on a student visa, or on a waiver by the Biden Administration which has just been revoked by the Trump Administration, or on a tourist visa or probably a dozen other things. It used to be that we wouldn't split up families and if you were here illegally and had a kid here, who was a U.S. citizen, you were safe. That was called an anchor baby. But the Trump Admin has no qualms about breaking up families.

Could we compensate them in other ways besides letting unvetted masses breach our national borders and become our responsibility? Helping them stabilize their own countries sounds like a better solution.

As I see it, a government's responsibility is first and foremost to its citizens. — BitconnectCarlos

It is, except a past president called us a shining beacon on a hill and we have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and one of our iconic monuments has this inscribed on it:

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Is that just talk to make us feel good, or are those words to live by?